You misinterpret my definition of 'contract" versus the more legal CONTRACT. one is legal, you sue, you get relief. the other is a bond between your customer and your service which an un written promise to deliver some value to the user.
You made my point exactly, that the streaming service has costs and is more valuable. but the CEO should have seen the scalability of hte business plan when it starts to take off. If they needed better pricing, then start out that way, do not bait and switch theuser.
Of course we all can quit whenever we want, and that is exactly what is happening, hence hte stock prices drop. hence hte apology letter, hence hte disaster to their business plan. that is a simple BS copout on any person associated with this business.
the sharehlders were sold a hyped bill of goods on an unrelaistic business plan. that by the way IS a contract that the CEO needs to address, in both sense.
On content, isn't is funny that a peice of plastic which can be shared, copied, distributed, and reused has more content rights than the streaming version of hte same thing, in which the distributor can put far more distribution controls on than the plastic. Maybe the DVD makers are trapped in teh 1980s..... |
